A thoughtful compilation and analysis of some important, but underreported and under-researched news stories, with particular focus on keeping the People informed about all Enemies, Foreign and Domestic.

Anyone is free to comment on this site. Therefore, outgoing links posted by third parties may contain objectional material, but do not reflect the views of this site's owner. When linking to an outside page, links should not direct the reader to nude pictures, erotic stories, or other forms of pornography. Nor should links appear to sites using excessive profanity. Use common sense. If you would be ashamed for your church-going grandmother to see it, you shouldn't link to it. In addition to not linking to any inappropriate material, commenters should watch their language, else their posts will be deleted. Likewise, libelous statements will not be tolerated.

This does not make me happy. For those of you Libertarians who think illegal immigration is perfectly okay, you are not thinking clearly. United States territory is like our house. We get to say who comes into our house. It's basic property rights.

I have never understood why President Bush wants to help illegal immigrants. His base supporters are largely against this. In fact, he would have lost the last election based on immigration (I suspect) if 9/11 hadn't happened and caused him to put a stop to his horse-trading with President Fox of Mexico.

I checked out the link you provided and it appears the author of the article places a lot of the blame for illegal immigration on our good economy. If he is correct in his assumption, the perceived problem of illegal immigration may self-correct as our economy succumbs to economic forces gathering just over the horizon. Keep a close eye on Fannie Mae for a hint of the next major financial tsunami following on the heels of Hurricane Katrina and Rita. Katrina and Rita are just warm ups to the Fannie Mae main show which will soon have its opening curtain.

I’m not a Libertarian and therefore can’t speak for them, but I would disagree with your contention that, “United States territory is like our house…We get to say who comes into our house…It’s basic property rights.”

If we take a look at the New London, Connecticut eminent domain case where private property owners were told they will have to vacate their property so a more thriving private enterprise (read: generating more tax revenue) will occupy their land, we’ve witnessed basic property rights, in the most classical and pure form, auctioned off. So, in that context and looking at the larger picture of United States territory we can extrapolate that we are going to have some difficulty making the leap from what was once considered an absolute principle (sanctity of private property) but is no longer, at least operationally speaking, to a concept implying sanctity of ‘public property’. Basically, ‘public property’ belongs to everyone, but no one person exclusively. Otherwise, we could all produce negotiable titles showing our ownership or interest in a given ‘public property’. Since we can’t do that, the basic issue of property rights becomes a moot issue. The poor subjects in New London, Connecticut at least had titles to the property being confiscated and we see what good that served them. So, if we compare the sad state of affairs leading up to what happened in New London, Connecticut we should not at all be surprised to see what is going on at the border.

The Border Patrol has been on a hiring frenzy for quite sometime now. Initially the hiring was done to replace all those who bailed out to become Air Marshals. The more recent Border Patrol hiring has been expansionary in nature. And the problem of illegal immigration is becoming worse. This is characteristic of other governmental operations designed to prohibit a given activity. The ‘War on Drugs’, the ‘War on Terror’, the ‘War on Poverty’, and the ‘War on Illiteracy’, are all government sponsored programs that have failed miserably in accomplishing their intended purpose. For each new government sponsored disaster the answer or solution is always more money, more personnel, and more control. In the end the disasters just become bigger and more costly to deal with and government becomes larger and more intrusive. Generally speaking, whatever the Nanny State is working diligently to achieve it gets exactly the opposite outcome. Think about it for a minute…as tightly controlled as prisons are they still aren’t successful in keeping drugs out. In light of that, what hope does the Border Patrol have, even if they hired a million more agents, in preventing illegal immigration across that wide expanse of land separating us from our southern and northern neighbors, not to mention the West Coast, East Coast, and Gulf Coast portals?

So, what is the answer to the immigration issue? Should we dismantle all border controls, abolish the Border Patrol, and throw out the welcome mat? Or should we continue peeking from behind a partially open door with our foot placed strategically at the bottom, as a door stop, in a vain, fruitless, and expensive attempt to keep the hordes of immigrants, illegal or otherwise, from stampeding on through it?

My suggestion would simply be to end the perks associated with immigration, illegal or otherwise, into this country. That would eliminate most of the undesirable immigrants who are looking for a ‘free lunch’. The rest of those willing to pull their own weight are certainly welcome, in my opinion. After all, who isn’t an immigrant or a descendant of one?

So, what is the real issue many have with immigration? Are they concerned their jobs will be stolen? Are they afraid they won’t be able to compete in the marketplace with a dirt poor immigrant who can’t read, write, or speak English? If they are afraid they can’t compete in the marketplace with a dirt poor immigrant who can’t read, write, or speak English…it doesn’t speak well of public education, does it?

Maybe the reason Bush is going easy on the immigrant issue is because his plan to save Social Security is based on massive amounts of ‘new blood’ coming into the system. We’ve got an awful lot of baby boomers out there counting on Social Security to see them through their twilight years. If there isn’t a large influx of ‘new blood’ into the system the younger generation will assume a much larger portion of the Social Security burden than previous generations have had to contend with. If immigrants are willing to pull their weight and not become welfare recipients, I say bring ‘em on. And once the younger generation feels the burden of shouldering the full weight of the baby boomer Social Security entitlement they too will say, with one loud voice, “bring ‘em on”.

My problem with illegal immigrants is mainly that they don't speak English. And it's not even that that bothers me. . . it's the fact that my own government wants to bend over backwards to use my money to accommodate them in their language, thus taking away any incentive they might have to learn ours.

With all due respect, your critique of the House doctrine does not exactly fit. In essence you are saying that how we divide the space in the house among the lawful residents is controlling over the way we decide who to admit into our house.

Deciding how to use public property is difficult because, as you point out, we all have title, and none of us have title. However, when dealing with outsiders coming in, the issue is completely different. Public property is public United States property -- not public world property. In our system of government, if the People, or their lawfully elected representatives vote on how, when, and where foreigners may enter the country, then it is binding, because this is our house.

Instead of continuing the bilingual system, we should spend the money telling the people what America is really like. I think it comes from rumors and fantasies of America being a "land of plenty and opportunity". I completely disagree with Spanish being an official language in some parts of this country. There is a reason that the Founding Fathers didn't make German an official language. It's because they realized not all of America had heavy German influences. So paying for translations and all that would be the equivelant of a giant pork project.

"If you love wealth more than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom,
depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest
lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."